XBLA Catch-Much: Farewell to XBLA

ClockworkHouse wrote:

It's an interesting narrative, really, because they were talking so much about their plans for the Empire IP and how they were going to do so much with it, and how Shadow Complex was just the first game in a whole new world, and then it all stopped. I don't know for sure, but I get the sense that Chair was caught off-guard by the success of Infinity Blade and just rode the wave. (I also don't know how much higher-ups at Epic contributed to the shift in direction.)

From what very little I understand of video game development: Epic contributed to all of the shift? I know that sounds immaturely cynical, but the dichotomy I usually read about, and what I like to believe, is of development studios that are made up of genuinely imaginative and ambitious creators, who want nothing but to push their imaginations making new things, like developing these Empire ideas; and of publishers who sees only numbers and say, "No, keep making the finger swiping game."

From what I've read and from conversations I've had with developers, that's going to depend entirely on the studio and publisher.

Also keeping in mind that Epic is a dev company themselves, not a publisher, although they are essentially an engine developer, so that complicates things somewhat. I remember reading / watching interviews about Chair and People Can Fly and Epic people (well, Cliffy B anyway) were excited to pick both of those companies up because they were making fun, exciting games that the devs believed in, and they opened a new studio just so former employees of Big Huge Games would have a place to work. Plus, their engine business prints money, so I would think that would mean they would give their subsidiaries a bit more leeway. Maybe Chair are just really into Infinity Blade, or they want to distance themselves from Orson Scott Card, or just lost interest in the universe for other reasons. On the other hand, I think there have been some leadership changes recently, which could explain the shift as well.

Point is, in this case it isn't so simple as "Publishers just don't get it, yo".

I hope so. I'm just reacting to Angry Internet Men who always shout down developers as lazy/greedy/etc, so I like to... shift the blame to the publishers? Well, when I read about game ideas that get squashed because they can't be shoehorned into an Assassin's Creed game, can you blame me?

I prefer to blame consumers for having a toxic combination of unrealistic expectations and bad taste.

Thanks for the advice on the profile stuff. Worked exactly as you described. All my profile stuff is gone and the content still remains.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I prefer to blame consumers for having a toxic combination of unrealistic expectations and bad taste.

That's true. I guess it's a vicious circle of publishers afraid to risk something unfamiliar and an audience which repeatedly shows it will readily pay for another sequel. Like, why make an original AAA pirate sandbox game when you can intercut it with some modern soporific to guarantee sales.

Sorry, I seem to really be on the Assassin's Creed thing.